I've always felt that Morrison has always wanted to be the next Moore, and Millar wants to be the next Miller.

All four of them seem to think outside the box and try outright to upset the the natural order of things. Its what comics should be, and its sort of funny.

He didn't say he didn't like avengers

Sometimes the box is there for a reason.

__________________
If the person you're seeing ever asks the question "Who is Stan Lee?", promptly kick their ass to the curb.
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."

This movie sends a very problematic message to women all over the world. There was not ONE female character that wasn't completely objectified in a very sexist way at some point of the movie. This is the 21st century, one would expect we are beyond that stage. Obviously Matthew Vaughn isn't.
Oh and all those X-kids were terrible actors, but this is just a minor nitpick.
This movie is far from anything I would consider good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungPrime

I can already tell you that most will just say "well it was based in the 70's" as if the poor portrayal of women was necessary to make this film.

The fact is that the women in that film were mediocre at best. And looking at what they've done with poor Viper so far in that Wolverine film it doesn't look like they'll be changing things for Marvel females any time soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

While I could accept that for Emma Frost and the way the CIA treated Moira, that certainly isn't true for (and this is just one example for many) Moira stripping down to her underwear for no reason other than the scriptwriters and Vaughn found no other way to get her half naked

edit: And if it really was their intention to channel every aspect of the 60ies then there is no excuse for that godawful x-kids behaving and talking like teenagers from the 2000s

I so agree with both of you. The film's period setting served as an excuse for demeaning and degrading all of the female characters, rather than a reason for it. It wasn't merely the fact that three of the four main females either were sex workers or pretended to be for plot purposes, but that all of them suffered the diminution of their status from the comics.

Emma, as much as I despise her, is much stronger and more intelligent than she was portrayed in X:FC. Angel Salvadore was never a stripper, as far as I recall, nor was she a villain. And poor Moira MacTaggert suffered the greatest indignity of all. Far from being the brilliant geneticist she was in the comics, Moira was demoted to being a CIA agent who was berated, ignored and finally discarded by both her bosses and Charles. Only Raven avoided such open degradation, though in the end she betrayed her supposedly beloved, critically-wounded brother without so much as a backward glance for a man she barely knew.

The problem with the treatment of women in X:FC is not that they were merely subjected to the sexism of the 60s, but that they were so diminished in stature and power. There is no reason why Emma and Moira couldn't have been portrayed as the intelligent, successful women they are in the comics. As a geneticist, Moira would have been a more relevant and useful character in Charles' attempts to bridge the gap between mutants and fearful humans. Emma could have been even sexier and more dangerous if portrayed as a powerful woman who used her sexuality in more subtle and manipulative ways. The culture of the time was awash in portrayals of women who used seduction and betrayal to get what they wanted and hold power over men. She could have been an elegant and sophisticated seductress who used her psychic power a la the Stepford Cuckoos as a means of influence and control. Instead, she herself was used by Shaw like a very blunt instrument, utilizing her body for control instead of her mind.

The writers of that film missed so many opportunities to make it into a richer and more interesting take on the time period and the characters. The film's production staff didn't even do a good job of recreating the distinctive clothing, hairstyles and architecture of the 60s, which would have done a lot to set the tone for it. They could have played up the similarities between the mutants' drive for acceptance and the Civil Rights Movement that was swinging into high gear early in the decade. That would have given the film some heft and cultural relevance and perhaps provided it with the emotional core it was missing. The movie simply did not feel as if it portrayed the period in which it was set accurately at all, which made it a disappointment to me over and above the many glaring weaknesses of its plot and dialog.

Different and shock value doesn't always mean it's a work of art. Sometimes it's just still a piece of ****. And pretentious **** at that.

__________________
If the person you're seeing ever asks the question "Who is Stan Lee?", promptly kick their ass to the curb.
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."

Hearing Avengers being referred to as a "popcorn movie" coming from this guy sounds sort of demeaning. Micheal Bay's Transformer films are glorified popcorn flick but most of Whedon's work deserves a little more credit. And for the record, I'm quite certain that Escargot wont be served in most theaters during Kickass 2.

Every one's entitled to their opinion but in this case it just doesn't sound genuine.
Chronicle was a good film for what it was but better than both DK and Avengers? Sure that assessment doesn't have anything to do with a certain reboot that's about to be re-ruined?

Wow one minute you're begging Marvel/Disney on the behalf of your employer for their Marvel prisoners to be part of the shared Marvel/Disney Universe and then next your slighting Marvel all together?

I can name 10 movies in 2013 that most people are more excited about than The Wolverine. Kick Ass 2 is one of them so I wonder where Millars loyalty would lie if FOX changed Wolverine's date to June 28th?

Basically Millar sounds like his opinion is influenced by obligation. On his Twitter account he mainly speaks of his own creations and in an earlier interview Millar compared Wolverine to Ironman and Mickey Mouse. Now he dares not speak Marvel characters name?

2013 will indeed be a very interesting year. So I'll definitely be eating popcorn while Millar continues to flip flop and misinform his followers and FOX fans alike.

looks like millar hit a nerve lol i understand you guys love avengers because it was your fanboy wet dream but call a spade a spade it was a fun,mindless,action movie nothing more nothing less nothing wrong with that i liked avengers too but it is like your are personally insulted that it is called a popcorn blockbuster even tho that is exactly what it was

There's nothing wrong with people calling The Avengers a popcorn movie. Heck, Jaws, Star Wars, and Raiders of the Lost Ark wear that badge with pride.

The difference between those movies and Transformers isn't that they're light entertainments, which is all that a popcorn movie signifies, is that they're also examples of smart filmmaking with well crafted characters.

Similar thoughts to mine. Back to the Future, Aliens, and T2 are also popcorn movies....it's not an insult at all except to elitist douchebags who feel like they have "superior taste in cinema".

__________________Uplift the entire genre instead of attempting to transcend it~T"Challa

I so agree with both of you. The film's period setting served as an excuse for demeaning and degrading all of the female characters, rather than a reason for it. It wasn't merely the fact that three of the four main females either were sex workers or pretended to be for plot purposes, but that all of them suffered the diminution of their status from the comics.

Emma, as much as I despise her, is much stronger and more intelligent than she was portrayed in X:FC. Angel Salvadore was never a stripper, as far as I recall, nor was she a villain. And poor Moira MacTaggert suffered the greatest indignity of all. Far from being the brilliant geneticist she was in the comics, Moira was demoted to being a CIA agent who was berated, ignored and finally discarded by both her bosses and Charles. Only Raven avoided such open degradation, though in the end she betrayed her supposedly beloved, critically-wounded brother without so much as a backward glance for a man she barely knew.

The problem with the treatment of women in X:FC is not that they were merely subjected to the sexism of the 60s, but that they were so diminished in stature and power. There is no reason why Emma and Moira couldn't have been portrayed as the intelligent, successful women they are in the comics. As a geneticist, Moira would have been a more relevant and useful character in Charles' attempts to bridge the gap between mutants and fearful humans. Emma could have been even sexier and more dangerous if portrayed as a powerful woman who used her sexuality in more subtle and manipulative ways. The culture of the time was awash in portrayals of women who used seduction and betrayal to get what they wanted and hold power over men. She could have been an elegant and sophisticated seductress who used her psychic power a la the Stepford Cuckoos as a means of influence and control. Instead, she herself was used by Shaw like a very blunt instrument, utilizing her body for control instead of her mind.

The writers of that film missed so many opportunities to make it into a richer and more interesting take on the time period and the characters. The film's production staff didn't even do a good job of recreating the distinctive clothing, hairstyles and architecture of the 60s, which would have done a lot to set the tone for it. They could have played up the similarities between the mutants' drive for acceptance and the Civil Rights Movement that was swinging into high gear early in the decade. That would have given the film some heft and cultural relevance and perhaps provided it with the emotional core it was missing. The movie simply did not feel as if it portrayed the period in which it was set accurately at all, which made it a disappointment to me over and above the many glaring weaknesses of its plot and dialog.

Interesting read. I gotta agree with most of it.

XM:FC never quite registered with me for many reasons...those you list being some of them.

__________________Uplift the entire genre instead of attempting to transcend it~T"Challa

I don't understand why Millar (or every other detractor, for that matter) use the term "popcorn" as term of derision when referring to the Avengers while at the same time revering TDKR, itself considered a popcorn movie and equally silly in its own right.

XM:FC never quite registered with me for many reasons...those you list being some of them.

There was a lot more wrong with X:FC than its over-the-top misogyny, I agree. Shaw's plan to cause a nuclear apocalypse so that mutants could inherit the bombed out wasteland that remained was simply ludicrous. It's not like most mutants would survive the radioactive holocaust he was trying to create. Most villain's plots are ridiculous, but Shaw's was one of the weakest ever.

I don't understand why Millar (or every other detractor, for that matter) use the term "popcorn" as term of derision when referring to the Avengers while at the same time revering TDKR, itself considered a popcorn movie and equally silly in its own right.

Not to get all cliche but it is a different kind of "popcorn" flick. TDKR touched on a lot more issues than your average superhero blockbuster. It had a lot of social context and was less tongue in cheek than the avengers or most superhero films.

Not saying that's necessarily superior or anything and certainly every movie shouldn't try to be TDKR (or TDK) but that's why it escapes that term pretty much. A popcorn flick is at its essence you see it, enjoy it but don't spend too much time analyzing it.

I don't understand why Millar (or every other detractor, for that matter) use the term "popcorn" as term of derision when referring to the Avengers while at the same time revering TDKR, itself considered a popcorn movie and equally silly in its own right.

Because they're still stinging over the fact that Avengers eclipsed their precious Batman at the box office this year.

Eh, it's not even like he said this to a major news outlet. He just posted his thoughts on his own forum. I don't see anything wrong with what he said. It reflects the same opinion as a lot of other people, just like "TDKR is too serious, Avengers was a blast!" would reflect a large number of opinions too. It's all a matter of taste.

They're both popcorn movies in my book, just handled in polar opposite ways.

And I mean really, he could be just as bitter towards WB/DC for not taking his proposed Superman trilogy.

There was a lot more wrong with X:FC than its over-the-top misogyny, I agree. Shaw's plan to cause a nuclear apocalypse so that mutants could inherit the bombed out wasteland that remained was simply ludicrous. It's not like most mutants would survive the radioactive holocaust he was trying to create. Most villain's plots are ridiculous, but Shaw's was one of the weakest ever.

I would also list Mystique's odd changing allegiance. I guess in a way it makes sense because she dropped into Xavier's life instantly too (she breaks into the house and he decides to adopt her on the spot?) I put that down to the dumb decision to cram every detail of the X-Men backstory into one movie. Basically they felt they needed to go from "the beginning" to "here is where the first X-men movie starts". So Xavier and Mags became friends and enemies in the same movie instead of have a friendship which lasted a decade or more and might actually feel compelling and real. Mags had to get his helmet of course. Xavier had to lose his legs of course. Beast had to get his blue fur of course.

Sheesh....what's left to tell? I guess the next movie will be all about Xavier losing his hair...that's about all they didn't cover. (But naturally they had to put some jokes in about it) I think the writer was doing coke or something...slow down dude!

Oh...and though I really like Jennifer Lawrence....but I thought she sucked as Mystique. Give me Rebecca Romijn in that role.

__________________Uplift the entire genre instead of attempting to transcend it~T"Challa

I would also list Mystique's odd changing allegiance. I guess in a way it makes sense because she dropped into Xavier's life instantly too (she breaks into the house and he decides to adopt her on the spot?) I put that down to the dumb decision to cram every detail of the X-Men backstory into one movie. Basically they felt they needed to go from "the beginning" to "here is where the first X-men movie starts". So Xavier and Mags became friends and enemies in the same movie instead of have a friendship which lasted a decade or more and might actually feel compelling and real. Mags had to get his helmet of course. Xavier had to lose his legs of course. Beast had to get his blue fur of course.

Sheesh....what's left to tell? I guess the next movie will be all about Xavier losing his hair...that's about all they didn't cover. (But naturally they had to put some jokes in about it) I think the writer was doing coke or something...slow down dude!

Oh...and though I really like Jennifer Lawrence....but I thought she sucked as Mystique. Give me Rebecca Romijn in that role.

Everything they did with Mystique/Raven was absolutely wrong, starting with her mysterious appearance in the Xaviers' kitchen. The film never even took a stab at explaining how a naked 8-year-old girl ended up breaking & entering at a Westchester mansion. Where she came from and how she got there were matters left unexplained, as was the reaction of Charles' parents to the strange child they were suddenly raising.

The sibling relationship between Charles and Raven must have made some sort of sense to the writers, presumably, but in light of Mystique's appearances in the other X-films it was really jarring and nonsensical. Xavier and Raven had no relationship at all in the other movies except as adversaries, yet we were supposed to accept them as brother and sister in X:FC? It felt like that relationship was created to set up Raven's betrayal of Charles and cast her later actions in a more sympathetic light. That relationship didn't make sense and is one of the reasons I can't view the movie as a prequel to the X franchise instead of a reboot. (The appearance of a teenage Alex Summers in the early 1960s, well before his older brother was born, is another.)

The makeup for both Raven and Beast was so horrible that I could hardly believe they used it. It was like the director decided that they could get away with using faux fur and Silly Putty without anyone noticing.

As for Charles and Erik, I guess they were friends for five minutes and enemies forever. Before X:FC, they were portrayed as two men who had enjoyed a long friendship before growing apart due to their differing approaches to the thorny issue of human/mutant coexistence and mutant rights. Had their relationship been handled that way it would have given depth and nuance to the film. But their differences were presented in a very simplistic, black and white manner where there should have been shades of grey.

The writers wanted us to see Charles as being in the right, but his attitude towards Erik's vendetta against Shaw was hard to take. Charles' insistence that Erik was wrong was arrogant, while his desire to work with the government seemed delusional. Trying to protect a Nazi who had murdered Erik's mother before his eyes made Charles look naive, foolish and judgmental. Using Cerebro to hunt mutants for the CIA is the equivalent of Harriet Tubman using the skills she gained organizing the Underground Railroad to track down escaped slaves for their masters. Given Charles' reckless actions, I thought that Erik was justified in breaking away from him. The writers should have explored the problematic aspects of Charles' cooperation with the government and its danger to mutantkind rather than plowing ahead with the "Charles is good/Erik is evil" dichotomy they were so wedded to.

For all the raving I heard about X:FC before seeing it, I had expected it to be far better written and acted than it was.

Everything they did with Mystique/Raven was absolutely wrong, starting with her mysterious appearance in the Xaviers' kitchen. The film never even took a stab at explaining how a naked 8-year-old girl ended up breaking & entering at a Westchester mansion. Where she came from and how she got there were matters left unexplained, as was the reaction of Charles' parents to the strange child they were suddenly raising.

The sibling relationship between Charles and Raven must have made some sort of sense to the writers, presumably, but in light of Mystique's appearances in the other X-films it was really jarring and nonsensical. Xavier and Raven had no relationship at all in the other movies except as adversaries, yet we were supposed to accept them as brother and sister in X:FC? It felt like that relationship was created to set up Raven's betrayal of Charles and cast her later actions in a more sympathetic light. That relationship didn't make sense and is one of the reasons I can't view the movie as a prequel to the X franchise instead of a reboot. (The appearance of a teenage Alex Summers in the early 1960s, well before his older brother was born, is another.)

The makeup for both Raven and Beast was so horrible that I could hardly believe they used it. It was like the director decided that they could get away with using faux fur and Silly Putty without anyone noticing.

As for Charles and Erik, I guess they were friends for five minutes and enemies forever. Before X:FC, they were portrayed as two men who had enjoyed a long friendship before growing apart due to their differing approaches to the thorny issue of human/mutant coexistence and mutant rights. Had their relationship been handled that way it would have given depth and nuance to the film. But their differences were presented in a very simplistic, black and white manner where there should have been shades of grey.

The writers wanted us to see Charles as being in the right, but his attitude towards Erik's vendetta against Shaw was hard to take. Charles' insistence that Erik was wrong was arrogant, while his desire to work with the government seemed delusional. Trying to protect a Nazi who had murdered Erik's mother before his eyes made Charles look naive, foolish and judgmental. Using Cerebro to hunt mutants for the CIA is the equivalent of Harriet Tubman using the skills she gained organizing the Underground Railroad to track down escaped slaves for their masters. Given Charles' reckless actions, I thought that Erik was justified in breaking away from him. The writers should have explored the problematic aspects of Charles' cooperation with the government and its danger to mutantkind rather than plowing ahead with the "Charles is good/Erik is evil" dichotomy they were so wedded to.

For all the raving I heard about X:FC before seeing it, I had expected it to be far better written and acted than it was.

Agree with everything you said. The movie really went over well with most people though. I'm just out of the loop on this one.

I REALLY think it was a mistake to not let the Xavier/Erik relationship breathe for at least one whole movie. The first three movies gave me a sense of a long friendship which instilled an affection toward one another that endured through their differences. (Not to mention we actually SEE Xavier and Erik recruiting Jean Grey later in X3)

Gotta wonder how Xavier would be trusting the government in X1 after this movie. Magneto was right in XM:FC.

Like you, I was appalled at the makeup too. Errgg....that was bad.

The only thing I really liked were the performances of James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender.

__________________Uplift the entire genre instead of attempting to transcend it~T"Challa

Agree with everything you said. The movie really went over well with most people though. I'm just out of the loop on this one.

I REALLY think it was a mistake to not let the Xavier/Erik relationship breathe for at least one whole movie. The first three movies gave me a sense of a long friendship which instilled an affection toward one another that endured through their differences. (Not to mention we actually SEE Xavier and Erik recruiting Jean Grey later in X3)

Gotta wonder how Xavier would be trusting the government in X1 after this movie. Magneto was right in XM:FC.

Like you, I was appalled at the makeup too. Errgg....that was bad.

The only thing I really liked were the performances of James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender.

XM-FC was a good movie. It suffered the Fox/Vaughn/Singer self afflicted wound of not being a reboot of the franchise instead of a prequel. Because it was a prequel (and a too loose one at that) Most of the problems of XM-FC listed are the problems when you compare it XM 1-3 and XMO-W which Fox foolishly kept as established cannon. TBO, I didn't mind the movie as a stand alone movie which those who enjoyed it saw it as. I personally hated it as a prequel with the continuity errors with not so much the comics as it is the previous canonical X-Men films associated.

It just shows that Fox doesn't take the Fans and the GA as a whole seriously. If they sold it as a box set, the GA purchasing with any intellect would be like WTH?? This series doesn't even connect??

So while I didn't mind the objectionable nature of how they treated women ( I'm never opposed to a little skin) the continuity flaws annoyed me which contributed to the characterizations that was so off like Mystique's for example.

Eh, it's not even like he said this to a major news outlet. He just posted his thoughts on his own forum. I don't see anything wrong with what he said. It reflects the same opinion as a lot of other people, just like "TDKR is too serious, Avengers was a blast!" would reflect a large number of opinions too. It's all a matter of taste.

They're both popcorn movies in my book, just handled in polar opposite ways.

And I mean really, he could be just as bitter towards WB/DC for not taking his proposed Superman trilogy.

The WB has all it's DC rights in one basket plus they're dying for a success just like FOX is. Which is no real threat to him.

Now if Marvel/Disney gets back all of their rights then he'll be out of a job. Thus the conflict of interest.

Plus I've seen his Twitter account where he speaks about his creations (Wanted, Kickass, Kickass 2) daily. And not once has he referred to any of them as merely "fun popcorn flicks".